Department of Defense Renamed 'Department of War': Symbolic Shift Mandated in New Act

The “Peace Through Strength Act of 2025” kicks off with a massive administrative shakeup: it officially changes the name of the Department of Defense (DoD) back to the Department of War (DoW). This isn't just about changing letterhead; the bill mandates that every instance of “Department of Defense” in the U.S. Code must be replaced with “Department of War,” effective immediately upon passage (SEC. 2).

Congress states the reason for this move is to send a clearer message to adversaries about the nation’s “willingness to fight and win wars,” echoing the resolve of the original 1789 department. This renaming also affects the top brass: the Secretary of Defense becomes the Secretary of War, and all subordinate roles, like the Deputy Secretary, follow suit. This is a purely symbolic and administrative change, but it’s one that carries a lot of weight.

The Cost of a Name Change

While the bill is short on policy changes, it’s long on administrative headaches and costs. Think about the sheer volume of assets that need updating: every sign on every military base, every piece of official stationery, every website URL, every digital system, and every regulation referencing the DoD must be scrubbed and updated. This isn't free. Taxpayers are essentially footing the bill for a global rebranding effort (SEC. 2).

Furthermore, the bill explicitly ties the implementation of this massive administrative change to “having the necessary funding available.” This means the rollout could be messy and staggered. Imagine a service member dealing with a retirement form that still says “Defense” while the base sign says “War.” This bureaucratic friction could lead to temporary confusion and delays in administrative processes—a classic example of a symbolic gesture creating real-world operational bumps.

Signaling Strength or Escalation?

For decades, the term “Defense” has been used to frame the military’s role as protective and reactive. The shift back to “War” is a clear, deliberate signal, intended to project strength. However, this change could be interpreted differently by allies and adversaries alike. Some analysts might see it as a necessary projection of resolve, while others might view it as a diplomatic escalation, suggesting a more aggressive or interventionist stance is being adopted.

For the average person, this might feel distant, but the language used by our government matters. It sets the tone for foreign policy and how the U.S. military is perceived globally. The bill’s core impact is not on how the military operates, but on how it is perceived—both at home and abroad. It’s a rebranding exercise where the product is national security, and the cost is measured in taxpayer dollars and potential diplomatic fallout.